WORLD  
comments_image -

U.S. Raid into Syria an Idiotic Move

The attack give Iraq's neighbors proof that the presence of U.S. troops on Iraq's soil is a major reason to worry.
November 1, 2008  |  
 
Advertisement
 

U.S. military incursion on a Syrian village late last month was illogical and ill-timed.

The U.S. has a formidable force in Iraq with massive air power which theoretically can attack whenever and where it wishes.

But the attack on Syria, regardless of whatever was mentioned with regard to the "value" of its target has come at a difficult time first for Washington, second the Iraqi government and third Iraq's neighbors.

The U.S. now finds it extremely difficult to persuade Iraqis that the security agreement it wants to impose on Iraq is for the benefit of Iraq as a country and its regional interests.

The attack gave Iraq's neighbors, particularly Syria and Iran, the proof that the presence of U.S. troops on Iraq's soil is a real source of worry and now they fear if the troops stay they will turn their land into a theater for their military operations.

What made matters worse was the irresponsible and light-headed statement by the Iraqi government spokesman trying to "legitimize" the attack even before the U.S. had officially reacted on it.

Thus, the attack and the way the government handled it are very good signs of a state without sovereignty and responsibility. Otherwise, how foreign troops based on a country's soil could attack a foreign neighboring state without this country's approval and moreover this country's government instead of denouncing the act welcomes it.

Forces opposing the security agreement now use the attack as an example of what will happen in case the agreement is passed. Even those who were for it now ask for substantial revisions.

Victory in the "war on terror" cannot be achieved by launching military attacks on Iraq's neighbors. There will be no stability and peace in Iraq if its neighbors feel threatened.

If U.S. Republicans think such attacks will increase their chances of winning the White House for a third term they are wrong.

They need "heavyweight" victories like capturing or killing Bin Laden for example. This is the event the media will jump on and pave the way for the Republican presidential nominee to win the elections.

This was an ill-timed operation with negligible military benefits.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: iraq, war on terror, syria
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Republican NLRB Member Accused of Leaks to Romney Campaign Resigns

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos Labor

 
 
Record 45% of Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Have Filed for Disability

By Muriel Kane | Raw Story

 
 
President Obama's Memorial Day Address: "Honoring Those Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
"Tubes": What the Internet is Made Of

By Laura Miller | Salon

 
 
Students at Stuyvesant Take Issue With Sexist Dress Code

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Chris Hayes on Memorial Day: Glamorizing and Justifying War with the Term "Hero"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
Cory Booker vs. Philly Mayor Michael Nutter on Mitt Romney

By BooMan | Booman Tribune

 
 
How Florida Governor Rick Scott Could Steal The Election For Mitt Romney

By Judd Legum | ThinkProgress

 
 
Renowned Economist Simon Johnson Calls for a National Safety Board for Finance Ticking Time Bomb

By Lynn Parramore | AlterNet

 
 
Veterans' Gap

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]